0.90 vs 1.00 carat - questions

[tc328]

Hi all,
I''m new here and planning on getting an engagement ring within the next 2 months. I''m looking for a Round cut solitaire in the 1 carat range.
My budget (diamond only) is around $5000. I came upon these 2 rocks that I have some questions on.

Both are from the same online retailer (see below). Obviously, one is a 0.90 carat and the other is a 1.01 carat...but the difference in price is $1740.

here are some questions....
Does 0.11 carat have that much higher value? why?
To the human eye, does 0.90 vs 1.01 have a noticeable difference in size?
should I look for a diamond thats over 1 carat or do I look for under 1c for a better buy?
Any advice is appreciated...thanks!!!

GIA
round brilliant
6.21-6.32 x 3.84 mm
0.90 carat
Color G
VS2
Cut - excellent
polish - excellent
symmetry - very good
fluorescence - none
$4340


GIA
round brilliant
6.48 - 6.50 x 3.97 mm
1.01 carat
Color G
VS2
Cut - excellent
polish - excellent
symmetry - very good
fluorescence - none
$6080

 

[marcy]

There is always a big price jump when you reach the next quarter carat size - whether it accounts for that much difference I can''t say. Getting the diamond that isn''t quite a ct will look like a one carat diamond and allow you to put more money towards the setting.

 

[tc328]

thanks for the info

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Yep, if you go slightly under the carat you save money and like Marcyc said, it''s a great way to save money and use it toward the setting or even the wedding band.

 

[fabcrab]

It depends on how you define a better buy. Sometimes it''s very important for the girl to hit the 1 ct mark. So in that case it is a "better buy". But if I were you, I will get the 0.9 ct and buy from a reputable vendor here with an amazing upgrade policy.

 

[ilovethiswebsite]

We originally had the same dilema but we decided to go down in color to get a bigger stone for a decent price. I think most diamonds until the I range look pretty colorless. If you go lower on color make sure the cut is excellent - ideal though.

 

[Isabelle]

I''m probably reading it wrong, but it looks like the difference between the stones in terms of millimeters is like 2/10 of a millimeter. If that is the case, I can''t see how you could possibly tell the size difference between them even if they were side by side. I would go for the .90. The millimeter size is right where you would expect a 1 carat stone to be, and frankly, what you see looking down on the diamond is going to greatly affect how big it looks. Just ask all the Asscher owners out there who pay tons of money for 2 carat + stones but end up with a smaller table than what a comparably weighted RB would have. The carat weight just goes to the weight. The width of the diameter is what will affect how big the stone *looks*. Good luck!

 

[arjunajane]

Isabelle is correct, this size difference will not be noticeable. as mentioned, it is important for some girls to be able to say they have the "magic one ct" - only you know if your girl will mind or not.

 

[tberube]

Date: 5/23/2008 12:55:46 AM
Author: arjunajane
Isabelle is correct, this size difference will not be noticeable. as mentioned, it is important for some girls to be able to say they have the ''magic one ct'' - only you know if your girl will mind or not.

Sure, arjunajane, that''s true. But I have a .90ct diamond and I think of it as a carat, and tell people it''s "around a carat" if they ask (which almost nobody ever has). Such a small difference can be ignored, in my opinion.

 

[ksbling]

I went with .94 and I think that is the better buy since I used that extra money for a nicer setting (tacori plat)

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 5/23/2008 10:30:17 PM
Author: tberube

Date: 5/23/2008 12:55:46 AM
Author: arjunajane
Isabelle is correct, this size difference will not be noticeable. as mentioned, it is important for some girls to be able to say they have the ''magic one ct'' - only you know if your girl will mind or not.

Sure, arjunajane, that''s true. But I have a .90ct diamond and I think of it as a carat, and tell people it''s ''around a carat'' if they ask (which almost nobody ever has). Such a small difference can be ignored, in my opinion.

tbrube, I think you and I are on the same page!
Perhaps I didn''t word my response properly - It is indeed my opinion that anything 0.9 or over is pretty much a ct, and therefore can be regarded as such and informed to those who ask as such.
Also, in terms of appearance they are pretty much the same thing, as you know.

My comment before just referred purely to ladies who haven''t yet recieved/bought a diamond, and for whatever reason would like tospecifically have one ct (don''t we all lol!)..

I am a huge advocate of buying below/above the "magic ct weights" as I am a value for money kinda gal..
hope that makes sense

 

[Regular Guy]

tc,

I selected a .9 for my wife''s replacement ring, and can easily support it.

Just also remember to read further, don''t go just with the equal reports of GIA excellent, and look closer...comparing them, for example, with crown & pavilion data for the HCA...and otherwise generally...continue to compare them for attractiveness. There may be other important reasons to prefer one over the other.

BTW, I also went with G VS2...great minds...

Regards,

 

[Doomaise]

I had a similar budget as yours for my ring, but stretched it to just over $5000. I had the choice between a 1.02 H SI1 ACA H&A for $5800 or a .928 F SI1 ACA H&A for $5200 (both eye-clean)....I opted for the .928 as size-wise no one will know the difference, I save a bunch of money (which went towards the setting), and I much higher colour (although both would have been pretty white).

With your budget, I''d look for AGS000 or GIA Ex/Ex/Ex stones, with Colour in the F - H range, Clarity in the VS2 - SI1 (make sure they are eye-clean), and an HCA score below 2.0. Then go with the largest stone you can find with those parameters within your budget.

 

[mandielee]

Around here (Bavaria and an American Army post) the main remark I get on my own .90 is that it''s huge, even with its thicker girdle (JUST into the "thick" classification, and there went its AGS 0 grade!) A well-cut .90 will often look larger than a mediocre or badly-cut 1 ct. Of course, a diamond solitaire tradition never really took hold here as strongly as it did in the US, and it''s rare to see middle-class women with diamonds over .50 ct.

Among my fairly successful friends and their fiances, getting a stone at or over 1 ct is considered a big gaudy; one of them has a .91 ct E IF princess cut because she didn''t want a larger stone but her fiance insisted on sinking the money into her ring. Among their very well-to-do friends in London, it''s considered a huge rock; back in our Texas hometown, its size is unremarkable. But expectations might run differently in your area or social circle.

I guess you should go with whichever one you feel better about buying, including such factors as whether the cost difference would allow you to get her dream setting, buy her that really excellent DSLR or laptop she''s been eyeing, take her on a couple of cool weekend trips before or after the wedding, take a somewhat more exotic honeymoon trip, or surprise her with some nice diamond stud earrings when you get home from your honeymoon, etc.

 

[tc328]

thanks for all the great advice.
I just order a stone, since we''re on this topic....what do you guys think of this diamond?

here are the specs.

GIA
1.01 round brilliant
6.42 6.44 x 3.98mm
Color H
VS2
Cut - excellent
Polish - excellent
Symmetry - very good
Fluoresence - strong blue
Proportions (see attached pic)
Girdle - med - slightly thick
Price - under $5000

I have seen some pics of a strong blue flour...and I really like it

 

[tc328]

a better pic

 

[Regular Guy]

I was surprised scintillation gets a slight hit, but basically, HCA likes it, and it''s an AGS0 candidate. Looks pretty good, I think.

 

[arjunajane]

tc328, I too am fond of fluor like many PS'ers - I'm sure you've thought of it already, but just be sure to check with the seller that its not affecting the stone negatively at all...

otherwise, the proportions look good and it could be a nice performer - is this a vendor that you can get an Idealscope from?

 

[tberube]

Date: 5/23/2008 10:39:57 PM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 5/23/2008 10:30:17 PM
Author: tberube

Date: 5/23/2008 12:55:46 AM
Author: arjunajane
Isabelle is correct, this size difference will not be noticeable. as mentioned, it is important for some girls to be able to say they have the ''magic one ct'' - only you know if your girl will mind or not.

Sure, arjunajane, that''s true. But I have a .90ct diamond and I think of it as a carat, and tell people it''s ''around a carat'' if they ask (which almost nobody ever has). Such a small difference can be ignored, in my opinion.

tbrube, I think you and I are on the same page!
Perhaps I didn''t word my response properly - It is indeed my opinion that anything 0.9 or over is pretty much a ct, and therefore can be regarded as such and informed to those who ask as such.
Also, in terms of appearance they are pretty much the same thing, as you know.

My comment before just referred purely to ladies who haven''t yet recieved/bought a diamond, and for whatever reason would like tospecifically have one ct (don''t we all lol!)..

I am a huge advocate of buying below/above the ''magic ct weights'' as I am a value for money kinda gal..
hope that makes sense

*giggle* Aren''t we all so polite around here! I love it. Thanks for being so careful with your wording, you''re a sweetheart...but I get ya. Some women are bothered by the "mind-clean" or "mind-size" of it all, and I don''t blame them. Others, though, just fall in love with their diamonds and can forgive their slight faults....like with their hubbies. Hehe.

 

[tc328]

This is from James Allen.....I did briefly asked them how the diamond was (not in technical terms) and they told me its a ¡°Beautiful Diamond¡±. They¡¯ll also send me the real diamond image on Tuesday, so should I ask them if there''re any leakage and if the strong flour effects the diamond negatively?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You just need to look at the diamond careflully in different lighting to make sure it is not cloudy looking at all. We have been told that is not common, but you may as well check to be sure.

 

[marcy]

I try to be economical too and like buying stones on the shy side so a .90 diamond will give you a 1 ct diamond at a less than 1 ct. price.

 

[tc328]

here''s a X18 image...(just for viewing pleasure)

 

[arjunajane]

Tc, do you have the specs or the link?

 

[tc328]

its 11 post above....(look up)

 

[RowingMunkeyCU]

Date: 5/23/2008 11:52:12 PM
Author: Doomaise
I had a similar budget as yours for my ring, but stretched it to just over $5000. I had the choice between a 1.02 H SI1 ACA H&A for $5800 or a .928 F SI1 ACA H&A for $5200 (both eye-clean)....I opted for the .928 as size-wise no one will know the difference, I save a bunch of money (which went towards the setting), and I much higher colour (although both would have been pretty white).

So you're the one that bought 'my' 0.928 stone... I suppose it serves me right for hesitating. Out of curiosity, how's it look? Any pics?

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 5/26/2008 10:27:56 PM
Author: tc328
its 11 post above....(look up)

oh sorry! I thought this was a new one you were considering..
in that case, the image looks nice.